Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Solar Energy 112 (2015) 361–372
www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Design, fabrication and outdoor performance analysis

of a low concentrating photovoltaic system
Nabin Sarmah, Tapas K. Mallick ⇑
Environment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter, Penryn, Cornwall TR10 9FE, United Kingdom

Received 16 March 2014; received in revised form 5 November 2014; accepted 15 December 2014

Communicated by: Associate Editor Mario A. Medina

Abstract

A prototype concentrating photovoltaic (CPV) module was designed and constructed with a low concentrating dielectric compound
parabolic concentrator (DiACPC) for outdoor characterisation. The designed concentrator has acceptance half angles of 0° & 55° with a
concentration ratio of 2.8. This concentrator design is suitable for building facade integration in higher latitude (>55°) locations. A small
prototype CPV module of 300 mm  300 mm was constructed with 2 strings of 14 solar cells in series. The prototype CPV module was
characterised in Edinburgh for different weather conditions and the performance is compared with a similar non-concentrating counter-
part (i.e. a flat-plate module with the same PV cell area and technology) in real time. The electrical output results for a cloudy day, rainy
day and a day with sunny intervals have been reported to evaluate the performance of the concentrating system with direct and diffuse
irradiance. The maximum power output of the CPV module on the day with sunny intervals was found to be 5.88 W for a solar radiation
input of 943 W/m2, which is 2.27 times higher than that for the flat-plate module. The average short circuit current of the CPV module
was found to be 2.22 times higher than that of the flat-plate module. The average open circuit voltage and fill factor of the CPV module
were also found to be 2.5% and 1.6% higher than that for the flat-plate module. The CPV module is found to be very effective on the rainy
day with an average power output of 0.13 W, which is 2.17 times higher than the average output power for the flat-plate module.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Concentrating photovoltaics; BIPV; Low concentration; Dielectric concentrator

1. Introduction requires increase in deployment of PV system both as com-

mercial power plants and building integrated systems. It
Solar energy has the potential to fulfil the world’s was reported that building integrated photovoltaics (BIPV)
electricity demand without negative impact on the environ- have potential of generating 3PWh energy annually consid-
ment. However harvesting the abundant solar energy ering current buildings around the world. BIPV systems do
efficiently and in a cost effective way is still a challenge to not need land space unlike PV systems and can also replace
the scientific community. With the development in solar building components, for example a solar tile can be used
photovoltaic (PV) technologies, it is expected that the grid instead of a conventional roof tile. Furthermore, in recent
parity with large scale PV implementation can be achieved times it has been found that concentrating photovoltaic
by 2020, depending on the energy policy. However this systems can be a potential option for BIPV. A low concen-
trating system with a wider range of acceptance angle can
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0) 1326 259465. significantly increase the power output with reduced area
E-mail address: t.k.mallick@exeter.ac.uk (T.K. Mallick). of solar cell.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2014.12.019
0038-092X/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
362 N. Sarmah, T.K. Mallick / Solar Energy 112 (2015) 361–372

From early days different stationary concentrator (0° and 55°) and geometric concentration ratio 2.8
designs for different applications have been reported. The (Sarmah et al., 2011). A CPV module with this kind of con-
primary design objective of the stationary low concentrat- tractor has been reported with reduced optical losses in the
ing systems is to collect the solar irradiation with the diur- module to increase overall system efficiency of the CPV
nal and seasonal variation of sun position without tracking system.
the sun unlike the high concentrating systems. Especially In current research, there are few other concentrator
for BICPV systems in higher latitudes, the concentrator designs reported to achieve higher concentration ratios
should have a wide range of acceptance angles while and a range of acceptance angles. To achieve higher optical
mounted on building roof and facades. So it was found efficiency for a wider range of acceptance angles compared
that asymmetric design is the most appropriate approach to the reflective type counterpart, a lens walled CPC system
for the concentrator in BICPV system. Semi-Nonparabolic has been proposed (Guiqiang et al., 2013). For a symmet-
(SNP) concentrator (Mills and Giutronich, 1978), Extre- rical CPC design of concentration ratio 4, the lens walled
mely Asymmetric Concentrator (EAC) (Mills and design can achieve optical efficiency of more than 40%,
Giutronich, 1979), sea shell concentrators (Rabl, 1976a, while the reflective counterpart has only 7% for incidence
b) were a few early asymmetric concentrator designs pro- angle 20°. However, reduced optical efficiency within the
posed and reported for BICPV systems. However these range of acceptance angles is the major drawback of this
concentrators were not suitable for deployment as they kind of design. A Window Integrated Concentrating Pho-
required seasonal tracking and had integration difficulties tovoltaic (WICPV) has been reported with different config-
on the building walls. Non-imaging static concentrator urations of hyperbolic concentrator design (Sellami and
designs were reported as another approach for BICPV sys- Mallick, 2013). This kind of system designed with 4X con-
tem with roof tiles (Bowden etal., 1993; Wenham et al., centration ratio can achieve optical efficiency of 60% for a
1997) and flat-plate static concentrators (Uematsu et al., wide range of acceptance angle. While this kind of system
2001). However these concentrators are not capable of col- has advantages of using daylight effectively, higher optical
lecting solar radiations effectively with diurnal and seasonal efficiency is anticipated to reduce the cost of the unit power
variation of sun position in higher latitudes. For higher lat- output from the system. In a very recent study mirror sym-
itudes three different designs with asymmetrically truncated metrical dielectric totally internally reflecting concentrator
parabolic concentrators for stand-alone, building roof and (MSDTIRC) design is found attractive for building appli-
wall integration have been reported by (Adsten et al., 2005, cation (Muhammad-Sukki et al., 2014). Performance anal-
2004). However the maximum optical efficiency is found to ysis with different design configuration shows that while
be only 56%, even though they are capable of collecting designed for an acceptance angle of ±15°, this kind of
solar radiation effectively over the year. design can achieve optical concentration ratio up to 13.54
Recent studies show the asymmetric compound para- (Muhammad-Sukki et al., 2014). However to achieve a
bolic concentrator (ACPC) design as a more promising wider range of acceptance angles (±30°), the optical con-
choice for building integration compared to the other sta- centration ratio needs to be reduced to 4.43. The perfor-
tionary concentrators (Zacharopoulos et al., 2000). This mance of stationary low concentrating systems largely
type of low concentrating ACPC can be designed with a depends on the position of the sun (or sun angles), the solar
wide range of acceptance angles for a specific concentration cell used, system temperature, and the ability to collect
ratio to integrate on building façade in higher latitudes direct and diffuse radiation. The advantage of the low con-
which can collect solar radiation effectively with diurnal centrating devices is the wide range of acceptance angles,
and seasonal variation of solar altitude angle. Study shows which enables the concentrator to collect a large portion
that these types of concentrators can collect 40% solar radi- of diffuse radiation along with direct radiation. However
ation even outside the range of acceptance angles. A BIC- the amount of diffuse radiation collected is different than
PV module with reflective type ACPC and acceptance half the direct radiation, so they need to be treated differently
angles (0° and 50°) is reported to achieve a 62% increase in (Sarmah et al., 2011).
power output compared to that of a similar non-concen- In this paper, the performance of a CPV module with a
trating counterpart, while designed with a concentration dielectric concentrator in an outdoor environment has been
ratio of 2 (Mallick et al., 2004). The range of the accep- reported. The performance in different weather conditions
tance angle can be increased by manufacturing the ACPC has been carried out in order to evaluate the influence of
with clear dielectric material. The solar radiation is col- difference weather parameters. Three days consisting of
lected to the receiver from the parabolic sides of the ACPC one day with sunny intervals, one cloudy day and one rainy
due to total internal reflection, hence reducing the reflec- day has been considered in this study. The temperature of
tion losses from the system (Mallick and Eames, 2007). the module has also been monitored to realise the effect on
The PRIDE concentrating system fabricated with this con- the power output. The performance of the CPV module is
cept is reported to achieve an effective concentration ratio compared with a similar non-concentrating counterpart to
of 2.01, while designed for the concentration ratio of evaluate the performance of the designed dielectric concen-
2.45. A dielectric concentrator for Edinburgh and higher trator during different times of the day in different weather
latitudes (>55°) is designed with acceptance half angles conditions.
 N. Sarmah, T.K. Mallick / Solar Energy 112 (2015) 361–372 363

2. Design aspects and manufacturing process of the dielectric with refractive index (n) 1.5, the range of the acceptance
concentrating PV system angle of the concentrator increases (shown in the insight
of the Fig. 1).
2.1. Concentrator design

A dielectric concentrator with acceptance half angles (0° 2.2. Material and manufacturing process of concentrator
& 55°) has been designed for use as a building integrated
concentrating photovoltaic (BICPV) system. The designed The concentrator is manufactured with clear polyure-
concentrator is a truncated compound parabolic concen- thane material using a casting process. The casting process
trator with a receiver width of 6 mm. The design parame- lowers the cost in manufacturing of the prototype module
ters of the concentrator is chosen to develop a stationary and is also expected to achieve better transmission proper-
CPV system for higher latitudes (>55°) considering the ties compared to other manufacturing processes such as
seasonal variation of the suns path. The truncation of the injection moulding and extrusion. Previous studies reported
dielectric concentrator enables to achieve a wider range to use PMMA (Mallick and Eames, 2007) and material 6091
of acceptance angles compared to the un-truncated profile (manufactured by Renishaw PLC) (Muhammad-Sukki
with the change in aperture profile. As reported earlier et al., 2014) as clear concentrator material by different man-
truncation of the complete CPC profile also reduces ufacturing processes. However the optical transmission
amount of the material to be used for manufacturing the property is not encouraging for CPV applications. So there
concentrator, with an insignificant reduction in total is a need of alternative materials with higher durability and
energy collection over the range of incident angle easy manufacturing process without deteriorating the trans-
(Sarmah et al., 2011). The cross-sectional profile of a con- mission properties of the material.
centrator trough is shown in the insight of the Fig. 1. The The polyurethane used in this study is crystal clearÒ
complete profile of the concentrator (without dielectric from smooth-on. The material possesses the following
material) is with the acceptance half angles 0° and 33°; advantages for use as the material for the solar
however with the introduction of the dielectric material concentrator:

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the module for manufacturing dielectric concentrator unit (insight: CPC profile).
364 N. Sarmah, T.K. Mallick / Solar Energy 112 (2015) 361–372

 Good transmission properties. cells in series. The active area of the prototype module is
 Easy curing process (cures in room temperature and 545.7 cm2. The compact prototype CPV module is fabri-
pressure). cated for outdoor characterisation, having the solar cell
 Low shrinkage, unlike PMMA. encapsulated and framed properly with a cover glass.
 Polyurethane is known for good resistance to degrada- The encapsulation material used is a silicon elastomer
tion by humidity and number of solvents. However the (Sylgard-184) having refractive index matching to the con-
yellowing index and UV-degradation properties of the centrator (n = 1.5). The encapsulation material also works
clear polyurethane are yet to be investigated. as binding material to hold the concentrator on top of the
solar cells in proper alignment. A schematic diagram of the
To manufacture the dielectric concentrators, an alumin- constructed CPV module is shown in Fig. 2. Possible opti-
ium mould is constructed using CNC machine to manufac- cal losses can occur at the concentrator–encapsulation
ture 10 troughs of concentrators as one unit. The troughs interface on both parabolic sides near the solar cell as well
in one unit are joined on the aperture surface which pro- as partial reflection losses at the aperture of the concentra-
vides structural stability to the concentrator units during tor and cover glass. Another possible optical loss can be
the integration with other components of the CPV module. due to the light escaping from the parabolic surfaces of
The diagram of the mould is shown in Fig. 1. It is observed the concentrator due to the surface roughness. The optical
that the mould with an open top helps in achieving higher losses at the concentrator–encapsulation interface is mini-
optical transmission properties of the concentrators, so the mised by introducing thin reflective film, which covers
mould has been construed accordingly with open top sur- 1.5 mm height on both sides of the concentrator near the
face. The troughs of the mould are designed to be receiver. The reflective film prevents the contact of encap-
120 mm long and eliminate any surface roughness at the sulation material with concentrator and also reflects the
edges. light if it escapes from that section of parabolic side (which
The casting of the ‘crystal clear 200’ polyurethane is a might occur, as the film will be in contact with the concen-
simple process, as the material cures at room temperature trator) (Fig. 2). The optical losses due to the air gap
and pressure. As supplied, polyurethane monomers part- between the concentrator and the cover glass could not
A (dicyclohexylmethane-4, 40 -diisocyanate) and part-B be minimised because of the complication of optical cou-
(plasticiser blend) are mixed as per the suppliers instruction pling of the cover glass with multiple units of concentrator.
in a ratio of 10:9 by weight. After removing the air bubbles Fig. 3 shows the image of a fabricated CPV module used in
from the mixture using a vacuum chamber, the mixture is the study.
poured on the module carefully to eliminate any air bub-
bles. The mixture in the mould is allowed 24 h for curing
in room temperature and pressure. After the curing the 4. Experimental procedure
two concentrator troughs of the unit and the sides of
the unit is machined to eliminate surface roughness at the 4.1. Experimental set-up
edges. After the post curing process, the 116 mm long
end product of a concentrator unit with 8 troughs is used The detailed outdoor characterisation was undertaken
to fabricate the CPV module. in the solar energy (SE) test site at Heriot-Watt University,
Edinburgh (55.9°N, 3.2°W). To analysis the performance
of the CPV module and the non-concentrating counterpart,
3. Design and fabrication of prototype CPV module an IV-tracer from EKO (MP-160) is used along with a
switching device called ‘module selector (MP-520)’. Direct,
A prototype of 300 mm  300 mm is fabricated using 28 diffuse and global solar radiation data was continuously
solar cells. The lay out consists of two strings of 14 solar monitored and recorded using a pyrheliometer and

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the prototype CPV module with dielectric concentrator incorporating reflective films to reduce optical losses.
 N. Sarmah, T.K. Mallick / Solar Energy 112 (2015) 361–372 365

Fig. 3. Image of prototype CPV module with two strings of 14 solar cells
in series. Fig. 5. Outdoor characterisation set-up at the SE test site of Heriot-Watt
University.

pyranometers mounted on a sun-tracker (SOLYS 2) from

Kipp & Zonen. A 4-wire connection from the CPV and intervals to minimise the error caused due to the delay in
PV modules is linked to the module selector and IV-tracer response of the pyranometers/pyrheliometer. The switch-
along with the temperature of the rear plate of the module ing time to get the IV data from the PV and CPV modules
and ambient for accurate measurement and continuous was kept within 2 s to eliminate the mismatch between the
monitoring. The IV data of the modules were collected in data of the two modules due to the fluctuation in solar
1 min intervals and the solar irradiance is collected in 5 s radiation during sunny interval days. The block diagram

Fig. 4. Block diagram of the outdoor characterisation set-up for CPV modules.
366 N. Sarmah, T.K. Mallick / Solar Energy 112 (2015) 361–372

and photograph of the outdoor characterisation set-up is irradiance conditions (mostly diffuse) and module temper-
shown in Figs. 4 and 5. atures on the cloudy day (15th October 2011) and rainy
day (17th October 2011) are similar; however performance
of the CPV module on these two days are reported separet-
4.2. Outdoor performance analysis conditions and
ely because of the difference in characteristic of the incident
considerations
riadiation on the CPV and flatplate modules. On a dry
cloudy day the radiation is diffuse which incident on the
The CPV module was characterised in different weather
CPV/flatplate module without any further variation; how-
conditions to evaluate the performance with different solar
ever, on rainy days there can be a layer of water or water
radiation conditions. The module was characterised during
droplets on the cover glass of the modules. This water layer
the month of October 2011. IV data of the module and the
or the droplets of water lead to further scattering of the
weather data (including solar radiation) was collected for
incident light. Since the designed CPV module and flat-
several days of the month of October 2011; and the perfor-
plate module performs differently with diffused/scattered
mance of the CPV module on a cloudy day (15th October),
light (Sarmah et al., 2011), it is important to consider the
a day with sunny intervals (16th October) and a rainy-
cloudy and rainy days separately while evaluating the per-
cloudy day (17th October) are reported. The overview of
formance of the CPV module compared to the flat-plate
the variation of the solar radiation, wind speed and the
module.
ambient temperature of the three days is shown in Fig. 6.
The performance of the CPV module with respect to the
flat-plate module is characterised during the day between 5. Experimental results
9:00 am and 5:00 pm.
The ambient temperature and wind speed did not vary 5.1. Performance of the CPV module on a cloudy day
abruptly on the 15th of October. An average ambient tem-
perature of 11 °C is observed during the day. Fluctuation The diurnal variation of the solar irradiance on the
in ambient temperature can be observed on 16th of cloudy day, 15th of October 2011, is shown in Fig. 7. Since
October along with the solar irradiance. The average wind the radiation was predominantly diffuse, with the exception
speed increased during the day time which can help in of a short interval of time, the contribution of the direct
reducing the temperature of the rear plate of the module. irradiation has not been reported.
A sudden drop and rise in ambient temperature on the It was a typical cloudy day for Scotland with a small
17th of October can also be observed at around 10:00am period of sunshine between 12:00 pm and 1:00 pm. The
and 6:30 pm, because of the rain shower. The wind speed maximum global solar radiation on a vertical plane facing
dropped with the ambient temperature and was 7 m/s south is measured 680 W/m2 at 12:20 pm. The diffuse solar
(average) for the rest of the day. The ambient temperature radiation is found to be fluctuating between 30 W/m2 and
and wind speed played a significant role in reducing the 300 W/m2 depending on the clouds and rain. The average
module temperature and eventually increasing the power irradiance over the day is 84.7 W/m2. The module
output of the modules. It can be observed that the temperatures are varied according to the change in solar

Fig. 6. The variation of the global solar irradiance, ambient temperature and wind speed of the three reported days of the outdoor study.
 N. Sarmah, T.K. Mallick / Solar Energy 112 (2015) 361–372 367

higher than that of the flat-plate module. The average short

circuit current of the CPV module was 2 times higher than
the flat-plate module’s over the day from 8 am to 6 pm.
The variation in open circuit voltage and fill factor with
the solar irradiance is also shown in Fig. 8. The difference
of open circuit voltage of the flat-plate and CPV modules
for corresponding solar irradiations was insignificant. The
average open circuit voltages of the CPV and flat-plate
modules over the day are found to be 7.9 V and 7.6 V
respectively.
The variation of the maximum power output and the fill
factor of the CPV and flat-plate module are shown in
Fig. 9. It is found the maximum the linear fit of the power
output of the CPV and flat-plate module with respect to the
solar radiation can be represented by the equations
Fig. 7. Diurnal variation of the solar irradiance and module rear plate
y = 0.00598x – 0.05163 and y = 0.00266x – 0.01876. Most
temperature on 15th of October 2011. of the contribution of higher intensities came from direct
radiation, so a better power output of the CPV modules
irradiance. The variation of the module temperature and compared to the flat-plate module was achieved for higher
ambient temperature over the day is also shown in Fig. 7. irradiance.
The maximum temperature of the CPV module is found The fill factor of all the modules was between 64.5% and
to be 19.3 °C at 12:30 pm, while the ambient temperature 80.7% during the day. The average fill factor of the CPV
was 12.4 °C. module over the day was found to be higher than that of
The effect of thermal inertia of the module can be the flat-plat module by 5.3%. The fill factor increased with
observed as it takes some time to increase the temperature higher solar radiation for both flat-plate and CPV modules;
of the module after increase in solar irradiance. The rear however at higher irradiance, the fill factor of the CPV
plate temperature of the CPV module was 4o higher than module is less than the flat-plate module’s, due to the effect
the flat-plate module at 12:30 pm, while for the rest of of higher temperature. The fill factor of the CPV and flat-
the day the temperature of the CPV and flat-plate module plate module for 50 W/m2 irradiance was found to be
was found to be within a difference of ±1 °C. 76.5% and 72.4%, while for the irradiance 680 W/m2, the
The short circuit current of both modules varied with fill factor was measured as 79.5% and 79.6% respectively.
the change in solar irradiance, as shown in Fig. 8. The power ratio of the CPV module is found to vary in
Maximum short circuit current of the CPV module was between 1.9 and 2.3 (Fig. 10) during the day. The average
found to be 624 mA for solar irradiance 669 W/m2, while power ratio of the CPV module on this rainy day was
for the same period of time the short circuit current of found to be 2.2. The average efficiency of the CPV and
the flat-plate module was 280 mA. The short circuit current the flat-plate module over the day was found to be 8.92%
of the CPV module for this irradiation was 2.23 times and 11.63% (Fig. 10). For maximum irradiation 680 W/m2,

Fig. 9. Variation of the maximum power output and the fill factor of the
Fig. 8. Diurnal variation of the short circuit current and open circuit CPV and flat-plate module with solar irradiation over the day on 15th
voltage of the CPV and flat-plate modules. October 2011.
368 N. Sarmah, T.K. Mallick / Solar Energy 112 (2015) 361–372

Fig. 10. Diurnal variation of the (a) power ratio of the CPV module (b) Fig. 11. Diurnal variation of the solar irradiance and module rear plate
module efficiency of the CPV and flat-plate module. temperature on 16th of October 2011.

the corresponding efficiency of the CPV and flat-plate mod-

ule was 10.7% and 13.9% respectively. The output of the
characterisation on 15th October 2011 is summarised in
Table 1.

5.2. Performance of the CPV module on a sunny interval day

The diurnal variation of the solar irradiance and the

ambient temperature over the day on the 16th of October
2011 is shown in Fig. 11. The average global irradiance
was 398.5 W/m2 on the vertical surface with 325.7 W/m2
direct irradiance and 72.87 W/m2 diffuse irradiance. The
maximum value of the global, direct and diffuse irradiance
on that day was found to be 943 W/m2, 851.3 W/m2 and
92.55 W/m2 respectively. The average temperature of the
CPV and flat-plate module from 12:30 pm to 16:30 pm
was 33.5 °C and 23.4 °C respectively, which is 23% Fig. 12. Diurnal variation of the short circuit current and open circuit
higher than the flat-plate module temperature. The average voltage of the CPV and flat-plate modules.

Table 1
Summary of the characterisation of the CPV module on 15th October 2011.
Parameters – Flat-plate module CPV module
15th October Solar irradiance (W/m2) Maximum 669.79 669.79
Minimum 4.14 4.14
Average 84.49 84.49
Short circuit current (mA) Maximum 279.6 623.9
Minimum 2.3 4.5
Average 34.1 69.7
Open circuit voltage (V) Maximum 8.58 8.82
Minimum 6.19 6.74
Average 7.56 7.88
Maximum power (W) Maximum 1.9 4.38
Minimum 0.009 0.02
Average 0.2 0.45
Fill factor (%) Maximum 77.7 80.7
Minimum 64.5 64.5
Average 72.5 76.4
Efficiency (%) Maximum 14.3 12.1
Minimum 9.5 7.43
Average 11.63 8.95
 N. Sarmah, T.K. Mallick / Solar Energy 112 (2015) 361–372 369

ambient temperature, solar irradiance and wind speed dur- The maximum power output of all the modules varied
ing this period was 14.6 °C, 670 W/m2 and 13 m/s, linearly with increase in solar irradiance, as shown in
respectively. Fig. 13. The maximum power output of the CPV and the
The variation of the short circuit current and the open flat-plate module over the day was recorded as 5.88 W
circuit voltage of the flat-plate and CPV module are shown and 2.59 W respectively, for the corresponding irradiance
in Fig. 12. The maximum short circuit current of CPV and of 943 W/m2. During the morning and evening hours,
the flat plat module was recorded to be 898 mA and when the module temperature was low, the fill factor of
399.2 mA, for the maximum global solar irradiance of the CPV modules was higher than the flat-plate module.
943 W/m2 on a vertical surface. The short circuit current Whereas during 12:30 pm to 4:00 pm, while the solar irra-
was found to be 2.25 times higher in the CPV module than diance was predominantly direct radiation, the fill factors
the flat-plat module, for maximum irradiance. The average of the CPV modules were found to be less than flat-plate
short circuit current of the CPV and flat plat module over module because of the higher temperature of the CPV
the day was 355.6 mA and 160 mA respectively while the module.
average solar global irradiance was 399.4 W/m2. The aver- The power ratio of the CPV module was in agreement
age short circuit current of the CPV module was 2.22 times with the theoretical study and indoor characterisation of
higher than that of the flat plat module. During the sunny the modules (Fig. 14). The power ratio of the CPV modules
period of the day between 12:30 pm and 4:30 pm, while the varied between 1.67 and 2.29 depending on the solar irradi-
solar irradiance was mostly direct irradiance, the average ance and the fluctuation of the solar radiation due to
short circuit current of the CPV module was 633.5 mA. clouds. The average power ratio over the day for the
This is 2.23 times higher than the flat-plat module’s average CPV module was found to be 2.19. The average module
short circuit current for the average solar irradiance efficiencies of the CPV and the flat-plate module over the
693.6 W/m2 during this period. This observation reveals day were 10.01% and 12.67% respectively. The average
that the concentrator is capable of collecting both direct module efficiency of the CPV and the flat-plate module
and diffuse radiation very efficiently as per the design. from 12:30 pm to 4:00 pm were 10.49% and 13.36%, while
The open circuit voltage performed as expected; it was gen- the irradiation was mostly contributed by direct irradiance.
erally consistent over the day, with small fluctuations due Because of the higher fluctuation in the solar irradiance
to the fluctuating solar irradiance, as shown in Fig. 12. from 10:30 am to 12:30 pm compared to the rest of the
The average open circuit voltage over the day of the CPV day, the average module efficiency over the day has been
module was 8 V; while the open circuit voltage of flat- reduced. The output of the characterisation results from
plate module was 7.87 V. The open circuit voltage was the16th of October 2011 is summarised in Table 2.
lower during the morning and evening time, while the solar
irradiance was less and mainly contributed by diffuse radi- 5.3. Performance of the CPV module on a rainy day
ation. With increase in temperature during mid-day, the
open circuit voltage of all the modules decreased. During The average global and diffuse irradiance on the cloudy
10:00 am to 4:00 pm, the average open circuit voltage of day (17th October 2011) was found to be 28 W/m2 and
both the modules was approximately 8.2 V. 20 W/m2 respectively (Fig. 15). The global irradiance is
slightly higher than the diffuse irradiance because of the
contribution of direct irradiance for almost half an hour

Fig. 13. Variation of the maximum power output and the fill factor of the
CPV and flat-plate module with solar irradiation over the day on the 16th Fig. 14. Diurnal variation of the (a) power ratio of the CPV module (b)
October 2011. module efficiency of the CPV and flat-plate module.
370 N. Sarmah, T.K. Mallick / Solar Energy 112 (2015) 361–372

Table 2
Summary of the characterisation of the CPV modules on 16th October 2011.
Parameters – Flat-plate module CPV module
2
16th October Solar irradiance (W/m ) Maximum 943 943
Minimum 3.6 3.6
Average 398.5 398.5
Short circuit current (mA) Maximum 399.2 898
Minimum 2.1 5.6
Average 160 355.6
Open circuit voltage (V) Maximum 8.64 8.82
Minimum 6.2 6.83
Average 7.87 8
Maximum power (W) Maximum 2.59 5.88
Minimum 0.008 0.03
Average 1.02 2.28
Fill factor (%) Maximum 80.8 81.02
Minimum 57.6 46.1
Average 75 76.2
Efficiency (%) Maximum 16.5 13.2
Minimum 3.2 3.83
Average 12.76 10.01

Fig. 15. Diurnal variation of the solar irradiance and module rear plate
temperature. Fig. 16. Diurnal variation short circuit current and open circuit voltage of
CPV and flat-plate module.

in-between 9:15 am and 9:45 am. For the rest of the day the CPV module was found to be 1.9 and 1.8 times higher
from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm the average global and diffuse than in the flat-plate module. This shows that the dielectric
irradiance was 14 W/m2 and 11 W/m2 respectively. The concentrator can collect almost 68% diffuse radiation,
maximum temperatures of the CPV and flat-plate module including all possible optical losses in the system. The open
were recorded to be 15.1 °C and 13.9 °C, while the ambient circuit voltage of the CPV modules fluctuated between
temperature was 11.4 °C. The average temperature of the 5.1 V and 8.6 V with the solar irradiance fluctuating from
CPV and flat-plate module was 7.2 °C and 7 °C 0.7 W/m2 to 419.6 W/m2. The average open circuit voltage
respectively. of the CPV modules and the flat-plate module over the day
The diurnal variation of the short circuit current and was found to be 7.4 V and 6.9 V. From 10:00 am to
open circuit voltage is shown in Fig. 16. The average short 6:00 pm, when the solar irradiance is consistently low (less
circuit current of the CPV and the flat-plate module over than 50 W/m2), the average open circuit voltage of the CPV
the day was 21.7 mA and 10.8 mA respectively, while the modules and the flat-plate modules was 7.2 V and 6.7 V.
average irradiance was 28 W/m2. In between 10:00 am The average power output over the day of the CPV and
and 6:00 pm, when the irradiance was completely diffuse flat-plate module was 0.13 W and 0.06 W respectively
and only 14 W/m2, the average short circuit currents of (Fig. 17). During 10:00 am to 6:00 pm, the average power
the CPV and flat-plate modules were 11.9 mA and output of the CPV and the flat-plate module was 0.07 W
6.3 mA, respectively. The average short circuit current of and 0.03 W respectively, corresponding to the average irra-
 N. Sarmah, T.K. Mallick / Solar Energy 112 (2015) 361–372 371

Table 3
Summary of the characterisation of the CPV modules on 17th October
2011.
Parameters – Flat-plate CPV
module module
17th October Solar irradiance Maximum 425 425
2011 (W/m2) Minimum 0.6 0.6
Average 28 28
Short circuit Maximum 158.7 326.2
current (mA) Minimum 0.44 0.8
Average 10.8 21.7
Open circuit Maximum 8.4 8.6
voltage (V) Minimum 4.7 5.4
Average 6.7 7.2
Maximum power Maximum 1.04 2.23
(W) Minimum 0.001 0.002
Average 0.06 0.13
Fill factor (%) Maximum 77.7 80.3
Minimum 51 53.2
Fig. 17. Variation of maximum power output and fill factor of the CPV
Average 65.4 69.9
and flat-plate module with the solar irradiance over the day on 17th of
Efficiency (%) Maximum 13.3 13.1
October 2011.
Minimum 5.9 4.95
Average 11.4 8.7
diance 14 W/m2. The average fill factor of the CPV and the
flat-plate module over the day was 69.9% and 65.4%. For 11.05%, respectively. The output of the characterisation
the drop in intensity of solar irradiance, the reduction of fill results on 17th of October 2011 is summarised in Table 3.
factor for all the modules can be observed at 10:00 am. It is observed that the performance of the CPV module
While the solar irradiance dropped from 419 W/m2 to varies for different weather conditions primarily depending
10.7 W/m2, the fill factor of the CPV module dropped from on the variation on solar radiation and fraction of the dif-
76.1% to 68.2%, while the fill factor of the flat-plate module fuse radiation component. The maximum conversion effi-
dropped from 71.9% to 63.4%. ciency of the CPV module is found to be 13.2% on a
The diurnal variation of the power ratio of the CPV sunny interval day (16th October 2011) with a daily aver-
module and the efficiencies of the CPV and flat-plate mod- age of 10.1%. The minimum daily average of efficiency is
ule is shown in Fig. 18. The average power ratio of the CPV found to be 8.7% on a rainy day (17th October 2011). This
module for the whole day (from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm) was is obvious because of the higher fraction of diffuse compo-
found to be 2.16. The average efficiency of the CPV and nent in incident radiation. However the daily average
the flat-plate module over the day was 8.7% and 11.4%, power ratio of CPV module compared to the flat plate
respectively. After 2:30 pm the module efficiency was module is found to be within 2.17–2.25 for all the weather
fluctuating and showing higher values, which may have conditions reported in this study. The cost analysis of the
resulted from the measurement error due to very low designed CPV system has been reported in another earlier
irradiance. The average efficiency within the low solar communication (Sarmah et al., 2014). It is known that
radiation intensity from 10:00 am to 2:00 pm of the CPV the cost of designed CPV system can vary depending on
and the flat-plate module was found to be 8.34% and the conversion efficiency in different weather conditions.
Therefore the cost analysis reported earlier was based on
the performance in indoor test conditions using a solar sim-
ulator. The cost analysis showed that the cost of the CPV
module can be 44.6% less than the flat plate module of
same area. However the cost of the unit power output from
the CPV module is found to be 20% (£0.16/Wp) cheaper
than the PV modules considered in the study. This is due
to the optical loses take place in the concentrating units.
While the cost of the power from CPV module was found
to be £0.64/Wp, the same for flat plate module was found
to be £0.8/Wp (Sarmah et al., 2014).

6. Conclusion

A CPV module with the designed concentrator for BIC-

Fig. 18. Diurnal variation of the (a) Power ratio of the CPV module and PV application in higher latitudes (>55°) is constructed
(b) module efficiency of the CPV and flat-plate module. and characterised in outdoor environment for electrical
372 N. Sarmah, T.K. Mallick / Solar Energy 112 (2015) 361–372

performance analysis. The CPV module is constructed Bowden, S., Wenham, S.R., Coffey, Dickinson, P.M., Green, M.A., 1993.
using 28 solar cells of 116 mm long 6 mm wide solar cell. High efficiency photovoltaic roof tile with static concentrator. In:
Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, 1993, Conference Record of the
The solar cells are connected in two strings of 14 cells in Twenty Third IEEE. 1068–1072.
series. The active area of the CPV module was 545.7 cm2. Guiqiang, L., Gang, P., Yuehong, S., Jie, J., Riffat, S.B., 2013. Experiment
A similar non-concentrating module (flat-plate module) is and simulation study on the flux distribution of lens-walled compound
constructed to analysis the performance of the dielectric parabolic concentrator compared with mirror compound parabolic
concentrator. The performance of the CPV module is ana- concentrator. Energy 58, 398–403.
Mallick, T.K., Eames, P.C., 2007. Design and fabrication of low
lysed in comparison to a similar non-concentrating part for concentrating second generation PRIDE concentrator. Sol. Energy
three days in different weather condition in Edinburgh dur- Mater. Sol. Cells 91, 597–608.
ing October 2011; sunny interval day, cloudy day and rainy Mallick, T.K., Eames, P.C., Hyde, T.J., Norton, B., 2004. The design and
day. On the sunny interval day, the maximum increase in experimental characterisation of an asymmetric compound parabolic
short circuit current of the CPV module is found to be photovoltaic concentrator for building façade integration in the UK.
Sol. Energy 77, 319–327.
2.25 times higher than the flat-plate module with a maxi- Mills, D.R., Giutronich, J.E., 1978. Asymmetrical non-imaging cylindrical
mum 898 mA for the global solar irradiance 943 W/m2. solar concentrators. Sol. Energy 20, 45–55.
However the average short circuit current of the CPV mod- Mills, D.R., Giutronich, J.E., 1979. New ideal concentrators for distant
ule was found to be 2.22 times higher than the flat-plate radiation sources. Sol. Energy 23, 85–87.
module over the day. The maximum power output Muhammad-Sukki, F., Abu-Bakar, S.H., Ramirez-Iniguez, R., McMee-
kin, S.G., Stewart, B.G., Sarmah, N., Mallick, T.K., Munir, A.B.,
of the CPV module over the day is found to be Mohd Yasin, S.H., Abdul Rahim, R., 2014. Mirror symmetrical
5.88 W, which is 2.27 times higher than that of the dielectric totally internally reflecting concentrator for building inte-
flat-plate module. The diurnal average of the open circuit grated photovoltaic systems. Appl. Energy 113, 32–40.
voltage and fill factor of the CPV module is found to be Rabl, A., 1976a. Comparison of solar concentrators. Sol. Energy 18, 93–
8 V and 76.2%. On the rainy day; when the solar radiation 111.
Rabl, A., 1976b. Solar concentrators with maximal concentration for
was mostly diffused radiation with a diurnal average cylindrical absorbers. Appl. Opt. 15, 1871–1873.
28 W/m2, the average diurnal power output of the CPV Sarmah, N., Richards, B.S., Mallick, T.K., 2011. Evaluation and
module was found to be 0.13 W, which is 2.17 times higher optimization of the optical performance of low-concentrating dielectric
than the flat-plate module’s. The diurnal average short compound parabolic concentrator using ray-tracing methods. Appl.
circuit current, open circuit voltage and fill factor of the Opt. 50, 3303–3310.
Sarmah, N., Richards, B.S., Mallick, T.K., 2014. Design, development
CPV module on the rainy day was found to be 21.7 mA, and indoor performance analysis of a low concentrating dielectric
7.4 V and 69.9%. Study shows that the manufactured photovoltaic module. Sol. Energy 103, 390–401.
dielectric concentrator exhibits excellent performance Sellami, N., Mallick, T.K., 2013. Optical characterisation and optimisa-
in different weather condition and electrical output tion of a static window integrated concentrating photovoltaic system.
corresponds to the indoor characterisation results. Sol. Energy 91, 273–282.
Uematsu, T., Yazawa, Y., Joge, T., Kokunai, S., 2001. Fabrication and
characterization of a flat-plate static-concentrator photovoltaic mod-
References ule. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 67, 425–434.
Wenham, S.R., Bowden, S., Dickinson, M., Largent, R., Shaw, N.,
Adsten, M., Hellström, B., Karlsson, B., 2004. Measurement of radiation Honsberg, C.B., Green, M.A., Smith, P., 1997. Low cost photovoltaic
distribution on the absorber in an asymmetric CPC collector. Sol. roof tile. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 47, 325–337.
Energy 76, 199–206. Zacharopoulos, A., Eames, P.C., McLarnon, D., Norton, B., 2000. Linear
Adsten, M., Helgesson, A., Karlsson, B., 2005. Evaluation of CPC- dielectric non-imaging concentrating covers For PV integrated build-
collector designs for stand-alone, roof- or wall installation. Sol. Energy ing facades. Sol. Energy 68, 439–452.
79, 638–647.